Encouraging you to vote yes on California’s Prop 8

This seems to be the big new argument out there now. Advocates of same-sex marriage are claiming that forbidding homosexual couples is just like the discriminatory laws that didn’t allow interracial marriages.

I can see where this argument is coming from, at least. I still don’t think it’s the same thing, however, and here’s why.

People of different races are all the same on the inside. Genetically, there is no difference between a black man and a white woman. They are the same. Our discrimination laws originated to prevent us from discriminating against someone on the basis of their outward appearance: gender, age, race. Proscribing interracial marriage was based on the outward appearance, but there was no reason to forbid those people to marry.

Same-sex couples, however, are a different matter. There is an obvious genetic difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples – two women or two men are not the same as one woman and one man. We’ll also have to get back into why people are gay, here: is it choice, or is it a genetic abnormality?

If it is choice, then these couples are choosing an alternative lifestyle. They are choosing to deviate from what society considers normal. People are free to choose to live alternative lifestyles, but they do have to live with the consequences. Americans don’t seem to like the fact that their actions have consequences, especially when those consequences are negative. That’s why we’re in this economic crisis. It is not any one individual’s fault; Americans chose to overspend, banks overextended themselves, and no one was prepared for the consequences.

So when a gay couple has a relationship, what are some of the consequences? Well, they can’t procreate, for starters. Gay couples have higher rates of STDs, including AIDS. Gay couples tend to be less stable. And, up until recently, they were not allowed to marry. When they made the choice to live that lifestyle, they were aware of that consequence. Is it good for society as a whole to let gay couples get married, to teach our children that homosexuality is equal to hetersexuality, to perpetuate a condition that is, at heart, an aberration from the norm? Assuming that it is a chosen behavior, the more we teach our small children about how great and wonderful homosexuality is, the more people will choose it. Eventually, society dies out when its population growth declines too far.

What if we argue instead that people are not gay by choice, but that it is a genetic tendency and we shouldn’t “punish” them for being made that way by forbidding them to marry? This goes back to the interracial marriage argument – if these couples are genetically different, genetically “flawed” according to mainstream society because of their homosexual tendencies, then they are not genetically equal to a heterosexual couple. They are not the same, and do not merit the same privileges. Marriage isn’t just about a couple who love each other; it is a societal contract. Marriages are about more than declaring one’s love for one’s spouse to the world; it is a bond that declares you are responsible for one another, you are responsible for your children, and you acknowledge your children as your own. Marriages were created to organize families, not to validate lovers’ feelings.

If we allow same-sex marriage on the grounds that it is discriminatory to prevent any two people who love each other from getting married, then it is only one more step to incest. It is only one more step to legalizing marrying children who are too young to be married. Beyond that, it is only one step further to legalizing polygamy. After all, these people all just love each other, right? What’s wrong with that?

What’s wrong with that, is that gay marriage, incest, child marriages, and polygamy, are not good for society. They are bad for society because of their effects on the gene pool, and they are bad for society because of their social effects. When we tear down the traditional family, we tear down the last place our children are safe from the world. By making marriage all about the couple and forgetting about the children, as society has been doing for the last several decades, we wound our children terribly. Look at divorce rates; look at fatherless children; look at gang violence; look at teenage promiscuity and teenage pregnancy rates. All these things are on the rise, because we’ve become selfish as a society. We are all about Me, My, Mine. Marriage ought to be about creating a home for our families, not about personal gratification. Perhaps there would be less adultery if we stopped to remember that – it’s not just about meeting an individual’s sexual needs (or, more often, wants). It’s about providing security for each other, providing emotional support, providing a refuge, a safe haven. It’s about responsibility. It’s about providing a safe place for children to grow up, taking care of their needs, until they are ready to go out into the world. And as much as they may want to, two moms or two dads will never be equal to a mom and a dad in their abilities to raise a child.

29 Comments

On November 11, 2008 at 11:37 am Stephanie said:

“Marriage isn’t just about a couple who love each other; it is a societal contract. Marriages are about more than declaring one’s love for one’s spouse to the world; it is a bond that declares you are responsible for one another, you are responsible for your children, and you acknowledge your children as your own. Marriages were created to organize families, not to validate lovers’ feelings.”

I agree with everything you are saying here in this paragraph except when you say marriage is a societal contract. What does that mean? I think if anything we should keep “society” and it’s standards OUT of marriage.

“Marriage ought to be about creating a home for our families, not about personal gratification.”

I’m curious, are you suggesting that gay folks are wanting to get married for personal gratification?

Your arguments do not stand up to logical scrutiny, let alone legal scrutiny, in many places. Briefly:
1) Let’s ignore, for a second, the incorrect premise that “Genetically, there is no difference between a black man and a white woman. They are the same.” Assuming this to be true, you still cannot then logically state in the next paragraph that “There is an obvious genetic difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples – two women or two men are not the same as one woman and one man.”
2) Your next statement, “Our discrimination laws originated to prevent us from discriminating against someone on the basis of their outward appearance: gender, age, race” is incomplete and misleading. Regardless of the origination of our discrimination laws, they DO currently prevent discrimination based on something that NO ONE could possibly discern from outward appearance: religion. So the origin of the laws is irrelevant, since even if that were true, the current laws do not subscribe only to outward difference, which means that even if you are right about the origins of the law, the law has EVOLVED to include something else. Additionally, sexuality is already afforded protection from discrimination, albeit insufficient protection: currently, when the court determines how to apply the Equal Protection clause, it does not protect sexuality with the rigor that it protects the other classes. However, we who oppose Prop 8 still hold out hope that another evolution of the discrimination laws is forthcoming.

On November 11, 2008 at 2:02 pm Jesse said:

Very nice post overall. It’s amazing to think how far society’s view has changed on such a basic concept such as marriage. I especially like this: “Marriages were created to organize families, not to validate lovers’ feelings.”

On November 11, 2008 at 2:31 pm waltzinexile said:

I think I may have gotten lost in moderation, so I’m going to try again.
Your arguments do not stand up to logical scrutiny, let alone legal scrutiny, in many places. Briefly:
1) Let’s ignore, for a second, the incorrect premise that “Genetically, there is no difference between a black man and a white woman. They are the same.” Assuming this to be true, you still cannot then logically state in the next paragraph that “There is an obvious genetic difference between gay couples and heterosexual couples – two women or two men are not the same as one woman and one man.”
2) Your next statement, “Our discrimination laws originated to prevent us from discriminating against someone on the basis of their outward appearance: gender, age, race” is incomplete and misleading. Regardless of the origination of our discrimination laws, they DO currently prevent discrimination based on something that NO ONE could possibly discern from outward appearance: religion. So the origin of the laws is irrelevant, since even if that were true, the current laws do not subscribe only to outward difference, which means that even if you are right about the origins of the law, the law has EVOLVED to include something else. Additionally, sexuality is already afforded protection from discrimination, albeit insufficient protection: currently, when the court determines how to apply the Equal Protection clause, it does not protect sexuality with the rigor that it protects the other classes. However, we who oppose Prop 8 still hold out hope that another evolution of the discrimination laws is forthcoming.

On November 11, 2008 at 2:35 pm Bethany said:

Waltz, I’m curious as to what you dislike about the logic that two gay men are not genetically the same as a couple consisting of a man and a woman? They aren’t, after all. Perhaps I worded the point I was trying to make too vaguely. What I was getting at is this: a white man and a black man or an asian man or ANY man are the same. Any woman of any race is the same. Any man can marry any woman, regardless of race, because there is no genetic difference. But a man can never take the place of a woman in a relationship, nor can a woman take the place of a man. They are fundamentally different.

On November 11, 2008 at 2:42 pm Bethany said:

Stephanie,
I’m not suggesting that only gay couples want to get married to gratify their feelings. Too many heterosexual couples take that approach as well; that’s why marriages break up the moment they hit the rocks nowadays. People are only in it to benefit themselves, they don’t want to have to work.
But marriage ought to be more than that. I’m arguing that marriage is the fundamental unit of our society, and provides stability to our society as a whole. Without marriage and family, who would take care of our children? Who would feed and clothe them? Who would educate them, send them to school? How would we determine the parentage of our children, which is important if only to prevent incest? My husband is sworn to stand beside me through the good and the bad. We take that seriously, not just for ourselves, but for the rest of our family. Marriages and families affect communities. Look at the higher incidence of violence, promiscuity, STDs, teen pregnancies, in communities that statistically include many broken homes. There is a direct correlation between families without two responsible parents of two distinct genders and the increase in all these negative consequences. And those negative consequences have an effect on society as a whole. Even if you don’t live in a community like that, you pay taxes to support welfare, police, prisons, rehab programs, low-income health clinics… It affects society as a whole, so I do think it is society’s business to define marriage.

On November 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm Bethany said:

Sorry, I got rambling there. Stephanie, to finish replying to what you asked me about gay marriage and gratification, here’s the rest of my thought.
Gay couples, under domestic partnerships and discrimination laws, are protected. They have every right guaranteed to married couples. The only thing marriage does for them is validate them by forcing the majority of society to accept their relationships as equal, even though the majority of society doesn’t choose that lifestyle.
It also opens the floodgates to hateful lawsuits, as has already been evidenced in Massachussetts, California, and Arizona, among other places. Photographers, doctors, newspapers sued, simply because they declined services based on their religious viewpoints. They asked gay clients to find someone else to provide their services, since their religious beliefs created an ethical conflict. Instead of peaceably accepting that these professionals do have freedom of religion, they sued them. Gay activists have been trying to force promotion of homosexual lifestyles onto the more conservative population. If California legalizes same sex marriage, it will presumably follow the trend of protecting a vocal minority’s “rights” over freedom of religion. Do you see why I worry for society as a whole?

On November 11, 2008 at 2:58 pm waltzinexile said:

Bethany,
You’re being disingenuous. I didn’t argue against “the logic that two gay men are not genetically the same as a couple consisting of a man and a woman.” I was arguing against the construct of your statements and showing you where your syllogism breaks down. You wrote that a black man and a white woman were genetically the same. Since you said yourself that race does not matter, let’s remove it from your statement. Now your statement reads: “Genetically, there is no difference between a man and a woman. They are the same.”
If this were true (which of course, it is not, but I was allowing for the possibility to prove a point), then you cannot claim that a man/man couple or woman/woman couple is in any way different from a man/woman couple.

On November 11, 2008 at 3:14 pm Bethany said:

Waltz,
That’s why I tried to clarify what I meant in my response to your comment. I realized that my original wording wasn’t quite what I meant.
How about what I actually meant? Do you have any further thoughts on that?

On November 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm Bethany said:

Just so you know, I won’t be checking this blog’s comments again until tomorrow. Have fun commenting; please continue to keep it a polite discussion.

On November 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm waltzinexile said:

Your rebuttal to Stephanie is simply based on untruths. Gay couples do NOT have “every right guaranteed to married couples.” Withholding the status of marriage from gay couples prevents them from receiving more than 1000 federal benefits, including rights of survivorship and social security death/disability benefits. Additionally, your point about the lawsuits is incorrect. Photographers, doctors, and newspapers are all engaged in the business of public accomodation and as such, cannot legally refuse to serve homosexuals. Those individuals/entities are entitled to their religious views. They’re just not entitled to force their moral views on other people while engaged in public accomodation careers. You do not need to worry about your first amendment freedom of religion; religious freedom is in no danger from marriage equality proponents.

On November 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm norikostale said:

Though I have some empathy with your point of view, your arguments are just as fallacious as the argument you respond to – the notion that inter-racial marriage is the same issue as gay marriage. (That is such a silly stance as not to even warrant a response!)

But let’s look at a few of your points:

*”To be gay is either genetic or a choice”. – This is simply not true. You fail to differentiate between phenomena which are “in-born” and those which are genetic. You fail to account for phenomena which are psychological in their origin. It is not defensible to say that if something is not genetic, then it must be a choice.

*You say homo-sexuality is “bad” for society because it will harm the “gene pool” (?) Honestly, to me that comment is unintelligible. How can gays harm “the gene pool” if they fail to recreate? And then you say that if we allow for gay marriage, more people will become gay and human society will die off due to lack of reproduction…?

If anything, the planet is threatened by population GROWTH, which undermines your position!!

*Back to your notion of “choice”: many (if not most) gays don’t “choose” to be gay anymore than a straight person “chooses” to be straight. People find themselves attracted to what they are attracted to, be it men or women. Yes, gays deviate from what conventional society has deemed to be “normal”, but does that make it pathological? Some homo-sexual orientation may be pathological, but at the same time, a good deal of heterosexuality is associated with pathology – see rape, wife beating, deviant hetero-sexual acts, etc.

The fact that gay sex departs from traditional norms doesn’t make it it “wrong”, other than per the dogma of the traditional. It is what it is and society has to reconcile itself that such preferences exist, regardless of what the traditionalists think about it.

Am I arguing FOR homo-sexual marriage? Not necessarily. On one hand, I empathize with gays being who they are, and their wanting to be able to secure relationships parallel to traditional marriage. On the other, I respect people like yourself for whom homo-sexuality is currently too much of a stretch to warrant a societal endorsement. The simple truth is that there are more people who share your point of view than those who think that homo-sexuality is “okay”. The way our society works, that has to be accounted for.

Why not a compromise? Why not allow gays some sort of “union” – call it what you will – which grants them equality with regards to standard marital “benefits” – financial, visitation rights, inheritance, etc. That way you can preserve the tradition of hetero-sexual marriage (for now) without denying gays their due?

If it is okay to be gay, per the liberals’ “tolerance” perspective, then it seems to me that it has to be okay to be “homo-aversive” as well, as long as no one is actively acting out on anyone else. This is something that the gays/liberals can’t seem to get; those who are “anti-gay” are entitled to their point of view as well; otherwise tolerance becomes “tolerance”, flowing only one way.

Hmm… I thought public places did actually have the right to refuse services… You know that sign they hang in most restaurants? You know how most stores say “no shirt, no shoes, no service?” Are they discriminating because they only choose to serve customers who wear clothes?
Let’s take the example of a doctor who was recently sued for not wanting to perform in vitro fertilization on a lesbian couple. He said, you know, this just doesn’t agree with my religious principles. However, my partner in this office will take care of you, you can still have your fertilization done, I’m just uncomfortable doing it because it violates my religious principles. So they sue him? He wasn’t stopping them from receiving the service; he politely informed them of an easily accessible alternative.
There is a serious conflict of rights here: whose rights are more important, the religious man’s or the lesbian couples’? The choice isn’t easy; however, civic rights come out on top every time a case like this has come before a judge.
So, since my religion, among many others, believes homosexuality to be a sin and not a behavior we should endorse, I suddenly am not free to actively practice my religion? Don’t you see what’s wrong here? You may disagree with my beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a right to have them.

Jim, I would love to see a compromise on this issue. I think the approach of domestic partnerships and civil unions is a good start.
A gay relationship is, however, fundamentally different from a heterosexual one. People who keep insisting that there is no difference and that they ought to be treated as exactly the same are denying those differences.
I appreciate that you point out that tolerance has to go both ways; I have been trying to get that point across in several posts, but I have many liberal friends and readers who can’t quite accept that idea. We tend to equate tolerance with acceptance, and then with promotion of a behavior or idea; tolerance, in and of itself, implies disagreement.

On November 12, 2008 at 10:12 am Stephanie said:

“Do you see why I worry for society as a whole?”

Yes, I do and we are on the same page when it comes to being concerned.

“Gay couples, under domestic partnerships and discrimination laws, are protected. They have every right guaranteed to married couples.”

The is only true at a state level, not a federal level. Waltz was correct in saying “Withholding the status of marriage from gay couples prevents them from receiving more than 1000 federal benefits, including rights of survivorship and social security death/disability benefits.”

Can you imagine only being legally married in California?

If you believe that domestic partnership’s have the same rights as marriage, if it truly is the same, then why not call it a marriage? Everything within the relationships “look” like a marriage right?

“The only thing marriage does for them is validate them by forcing the majority of society to accept their relationships as equal, even though the majority of society doesn’t choose that lifestyle.”

And if this were truly the one and only reason, would that be wrong? African Americans deserved that same right, inter-racial couples deserved that same right, didn’t they?

“It also opens the floodgates to hateful lawsuits, as has already been evidenced in Massachussetts, California, and Arizona, among other places. Photographers, doctors, newspapers sued, simply because they declined services based on their religious viewpoints. They asked gay clients to find someone else to provide their services, since their religious beliefs created an ethical conflict.”

This seems to be traditional behavior for many us, really. This is something we have practiced doing for years isn’t it? Many folks had those same kinds of fears and worries when women were fighting for their rights, when African American’s were fighting for their rights and when inter-racial couples were fighting for their rights. This is something you can’t stop, no matter how you voted the flood gates are already open. This is a particular group of people who will continue to fight, one way or another, for their rights, whether it is legal to marry or not. So you aren’t really opening the floodgates for this to happen if same sex marriage is legal are you?

“Instead of peaceably accepting that these professionals do have freedom of religion, they sued them. There were many folks who Gay activists have been trying to force promotion of homosexual lifestyles onto the more conservative population. If California legalizes same sex marriage, it will presumably follow the trend of protecting a vocal minority’s “rights” over freedom of religion.”

I’m not really one who supports the whole idea of suing. I think we have become one sue happy nation really. However, in regard to you comment here, do you remember why the majority of people discriminated against African Americans or even women for that matter? They claimed it was because of their religious views. Because of what the bible said. Did that make it right? Should those folks have peacefully accepted too?

“Assuming that it is a chosen behavior, the more we teach our small children about how great and wonderful homosexuality is, the more people will choose it. Eventually, society dies out when its population growth declines too far.”

In your heart, do you honestly believe this will happen?

By the way, no need to apologize for rambling. I think I’m pretty good at that myself.

Hey, Stephanie? I totally love you. Thanks for making your points much more calmly than I can.

On November 14, 2008 at 10:23 am Bethany said:

I, for one, would be fine with seeing some sort of compromise on this issue. My first problem with the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage is that I don’t want my children taught morals in school that are contradictory to what they are taught at home. I believe that as their parents, my husband and I have a right to teach them. As schools try to teach tolerance of homosexuality, too many of them go too far and start to promote homosexuality. I don’t think that’s appropriate.
My second problem with this issue is the lawsuits that spring up. Like it or not, many religions believe homosexuality is a sin, and people of those religions often don’t want to participate in activities that support homosexuality, since that violates their religious beliefs. We would have to find a way to compromise; we need a way to protect religious people from persecution. America was founded on principles of religious freedom; it would be a shame to start revoking that freedom.
All that being said, I still, personally, don’t believe that a gay “marriage” is the same as a heterosexual marriage. The relationships are fundamentally different.
On the issue of federal benefits, I admit I’m curious: would California legalizing gay marriage actually ensure gay couples those federal benefits? Especially since the federal government defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman?
And I do believe that if we start teaching our young, impressionable children about homosexuality, that more of them will choose a homosexual lifestyle. After all, how many little kids hate children of the opposite gender? Boys and girls mature differently, and have different interests when they are young. If we start teaching them what it means to be gay and that it’s a great thing if they want to make that choice, don’t you think a greater number will choose that lifestyle? I don’t think 5 year olds need to be discussing sexuality of any kind, personally.

On November 16, 2008 at 12:34 am standingfortruth2008 said:

It’s all coming down to morality. When we speak calmly and logically about Gay Marriage, few will agree that all relationships should be accepted (Gay, Open, Incestual, Polygamous, etc.)

The No on 8 crowd only wants what they think is right.

I am getting very tired of it.

Please contact me if you have time, we need your help in continued blogging.

Thanks!

On November 18, 2008 at 1:35 pm Stephanie said:

Bethany,

I understand so much of what you are sharing and it saddens me to a great degree that there is so many unnecessary fears and concerns in the hearts of you and many others when it comes to gay marriages.

I understand the many reasons those fears are there though. I can only speak on my own experiences and what I have seen on the other side of this issue.

I am a lesbian who is in a very committed relationship. We are both Christians and take our faith very seriously. My partner is in seminary and I stay at home with our two girls which I home school everyday.

We work hard to raise our children with morals, values and a ton of love. We work hard to serve one another and others everyday.

Their Father is oversees right now, serving our country, but is very much a part of their life. We recently took our children to see their Father, so they could spend some time with him while he was on leave. We spent 4 days in another state just so our children could spend time with their Dad and his girlfriend. We didn’t do it for ourselves, we did it for our children. We do things like this for our children because we both believe their Father IS an important part of their life.

In our marriage, our children see two people who are completely committed to one another, always thinking about the other and others around them. They see two people who love. We not only teach our children about love and morals, we teach them about value. We teach them how to serve everyone and how everyone has value. We attempt to live our lives according to the Gospels. Many days I cook for up to 12 people because there is a campus full of single mothers here who are at times, struggling. We all share a meal together, help each other, encourage each other, lift each others burdens as much as we can because we are a community and community is important.

Our family may not look like yours, it may not operate the same as yours on a daily basis, but it has all the same things that I would hope your household has….love.

The fears that grip you about how our children will grow up are truly fictitious. I’m not disregarding the concerns that you have voiced all throughout this blog but what I am saying is WHEN a child learns about homosexuality (because they will find out one way or another), it simply is not true that they will want to be gay as well.

It’s really kind of funny and simple when you think about it. How many gay people do you know who have straight parents? How many gay people do you know have raised gay children? Straight parents have raised a lot of children who are gay and gay parents have raised a lot of children who have grown up to be straight. There seems to be a pattern there. Something worth questioning.

I understand that same sex marriage may not be the same as what you call traditional marriage. It may not look the same as what you are a custom to and anything different may be a little scary, I completely understand that. But there is only one difference and in many cases, on the inside our marriages don’t really look too different.

I’m not here to destroy your marriage or damage your kids, I couldn’t dream of doing that. I’m not going push my life on your kids, just like I wouldn’t think you would push yours on our kids. Just because two families do things a little differently than one another, doesn’t mean we have the right to control their rights.

Even if you take my rights away from me, I’m still going to be here. I’m still going to be gay, I’m still going to be with the woman I love, I’m still going dedicate my life to raising these children, serving the Lord and the Lord’s people.

I hope you don’t teach your children that I’m the bad guy or the sinner who deserves different rights than you.

It’s been nice chatting with you Bethany. Take care and I wish the best for you and your family. Peace.

On November 22, 2008 at 10:37 am Para-DOX said:

Wow, very well said Stephanie.

I am a new-comer to this thread, so, I hope I don’t throw everyone off 🙂

To Bethany and everyone who responded here, I just want to offer my humble thoughts. Perhaps the core issue is not if interracial marriages are the same as same-sex marriages (this can be debated ad nauseam). I think the core issue is deeper and much more personal — fear of change.

Homosexuality has existed since ancient Greece and will no doubt continue long after all of us are dead and buried. It is a reality that our society is very uncomfortable with, mostly because we were never raised to take the time to understand it. Anything associated with homosexuality, many of us cannot fully understand or relate to. When we cannot understand something we have trouble accepting it and often times we fear it. To quote master Yoda, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” (Sorry, but I love that quote)

Same-sex marriage is a new development — a change — and we commonly fear change because we don’t understand it. Since we can’t understand it, we can’t accept it. If we can’t accept it, we must oppose it. Do you see the natural progression? There will be more issues in the years to come related to gay/lesbian rights and we will not all be ready to accept them. One of our primary responsibilities as people of faith and as American citizens is to show compassion and respect for each other. We may not agree on whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, but, we can show compassion and respect for the couples involved and the difficult decisions and challenges they face each day.

When we fear change, we usually rely on our faith to guide us through our uncertainty. Faith alone may not provide us with the answers but it should give us comfort and strength to ward off the fear that paralyzes us.

There are married gay couples in our country right now as I write this post. They are not going to simply vanish and they will fight for their rights as citizens. They have fear just like many of you do but they are hard working Americans who pay their taxes, support our economy, and give all their blood, sweat, and tears to contribute to a brighter future for us all. And they do all this even when some of us reject and scorn them for their lifestyle.

Perhaps I am just naiive but I believe that we can all find a happy medium, a compromise of some sort on this issue.

On December 21, 2008 at 11:27 pm Tim H said:

Your argument is based on entirely false logic, Bethany. It follows a priori from your belief that marriage can only be between a man a woman. All you are saying is that, your assumption being the case, marriage can be between any man and any woman. (Incidentally, that isn’t the case. We do not allow marriage between close relatives, nor do we allow someone to marry someone else without their consent. So, no, it isn’t the case that any man can take the place of any other man in an instance of marriage.) This in no way relates to the comparrison between this ban and the ban on inter-racial marriage, and it cannot possibly unless one agress with your assumption that homosexual couples are not equal to heterosexual couples but inter-racial couples are equal to couples of the same race.

There is no objective difference between support for either ban, and I can only think it is your complete misapprehension of genetics that leads you to think otherwise (for the record, there is a genetic difference between a black man and a white man – the colour of your skin is a genetic characteristics). And bizarrely, in trying to argue that there is an objective difference between the two bans, you employ many of the same claims that those who opposed inter-racial marriage did. To whit: “They are choosing to deviate from what society considers normal,” “Gay couples have higher rates of STDs, including AIDS” (it was syphilis back then), “Gay couples tend to be less stable,” “They are not the same, and do not merit the same privileges”, “it is only one more step to incest”, “They are bad for society because of their effects on the gene pool, and they are bad for society because of their social effects”, “When we tear down the traditional family, we tear down the last place our children are safe from the world”. Just as you seem to think gay marriage will lead to society dying out, opponents of inter-racial marriage believed such marriages would eventually lead to the white race dying out. They were wrong and so are you.

Wow, quite a party you’ve got going in here Bethany! You’re absolutely right about marriage being more than just simply sexual gratification, that’s why there are so many negative and unhealthy things that follow from societies where sex is taken as recreation instead of responsibility.

This isn’t a question of equal rights as it was in the civil rights movement, this is precisely about choices and choices are not equal. People are.

It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is genetic, a choice, product of environment, or a combo of all three.

Homosexuality expresses itself in a behavior. Society is allowed to discriminate against behavior. For example, we discriminate against drinkers and smokers all the time. There are laws limiting where they may drink (even an age limit).

Race has nothing to do with behavior. Also, the miscegenation laws were not something that were in effect across time and culture in world history. During certain periods, race was regulated in marriage by the local government. However, the definition of marriage has always been a man and a woman. In every culture. In every society. Even in polygamous societies– the marriages consist of one man and one woman. (one man is just able to marry more than one woman).

It is wise for society to discriminate in this case because children need a mom and a dad. There is no research to champion the same-gender couple as better or equal to the opposite-sex in-tact home.

I think a lot of people are missing the point here.
Same sex attraction is a disorder. Homosexual acts cause psychological and health problems. If we allow people with same sex attraction to make an attempt at some type of “marriage” then society is encouraging the person to grow in their disorder and condoning sexual acts which are damaging to their health.

People of different races who marry are not subject to the same experiences. Being sexually attracted to someone of a different race and opposite sex is not a disorder. These people who marry do not experience increased risk of psychological damage or health risks.

Tim, Stephanie, et all. You think by couching your remarks in philosophic jargon and moral relativist platitudes you make your views sound much more reasonable than Bethany’s. And you think that we should all be as excited as you for this happy “evolution” of mankind that is legitimized homosexuality. Unfortunately, say them however you like, your points do not stand up to reality.
1. The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality (gay or lesbian) in both the old and new testaments, so the Christian argument for acceptance of homosexuality is false.

2. Since homosexuality obviously does not promote the generation of offspring, in strict Darwinian terms, homosexuality it is trait that is harmful to the human race and should be eliminated.

3. Despite what has been disingenuously claimed by media and associations with clear agenda, studies and experience shows that individuals participating in homosexual behavior experience more violence, die earlier, have many more sexual partners, develop emotional problems much more often, etc. Children of individuals participating in homosexual behaviors are likewise much more at risk to emotional and psychological problems than children brought up in traditional families.

4. You also have the audacity to suggest that the entire human race up until now has been wrong to look down upon homosexual unions and not consider them legitimate marriages or families. What makes you think you are smarter than all of the great philosophers, religionists, rulers and civil servants, mothers and fathers who have held this view up until now?
The truth is, you ignore all of these self-evident facts because of your moral-relativist dogma. Homosexuality is very, very bad for our society and though people should be allowed to act out on their perverted impulses in private, it should in no way, shape, or form be promoted in our society.

Just wanted to tell you that I think you’re amazing for standing strong against the demoralization of society and the redefinition of marriage and family.

As per WaltzinExile (aka Mrs.Waltz) who posted on November 11, at 2:58pm, and began her response with this comical statement: “Bethany, You’re being disingenuous:”

Click here and here to view comment threads in which WaltzinExile/Mrs.Waltz shamelessly displays true disingenuity. Everywhere I find WaltzinExile, she speaks with a different voice, most often lately one of false miscomprehension in an attempt to distract. So, I do what I can to educate others as to her true nature.

You are greatly appreciated, Bethany. And most important, you are not alone in your beliefs. Not by a long shot.

Keep blogging!
Pearl

On January 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm cschande said:

Great post! I really enjoy reading your blog. Keep up the good work.

I’ve just started a new blog that will be highlighting the dangerous advances of the secular progressive movement (pro-gay “rights”, pro-abortion, anti-religious freedoms, etc). Unfortunately, most Christians still don’t know what’s going on out there and the mainstream media certainly isn’t covering it.

We’re looking to build a solid group of social conservatives who’ll frequent our site regularly and contribute to some good discussions. I hope you’ll check us out!

If you’ll add us to your blogroll we’ll gladly add you to ours. Just drop us a comment over at our blog so that we’ll know to add you. Our blog is called Religion and Morality.

Bethany, you said a couple of things that raised some questions for me.

You’ve said a couple of times in this thread homosexual relationships are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones. You also say it doesn’t matter what arguments others give for the two being in fact the same. I was just interested, what are your arguments for the two relationships being fundamentally different?

You also say “Gay couples have higher rates of STDs, including AIDS” and “Gay couples tend to be less stable,”… And I just wanted to ask you:

What do STD’s have to do with the right of gay people to marry? Should straight people who carry a STD be prevented from marrying?

Where is your proof, that gay couples tend to be less stable? For the sake of argument let’s say they are really less stable… could that be because the society has denied them their rights?

Why would allowing homosexuals to marry each other take any society closer to allowing marriage between close relatives or polygamy? I’m really interested in hearing why you would think this? Just because you can say it would happen, does not mean it would actually happen.

It is very unfortunate some people are being sued because their religious views prevent them from giving services to homosexuals. But what has that got to do with homosexual marriage? Gays are trying to fight for their rights, and it saddens me some of them are trying to do so by limiting the rights of others.

But giving homosexuals the right to marry would not necessarily lead to more lawsuits. It would probably lead to less. Think about it! Gays wouldn’t need to go to court to try to preserve their rights, if they were not denied their rights by the society in the first place.

And yes. People have the right to pursue happiness. This includes the right to marry. The right to marry means the right to have the privileges that come with marriage. why would heterosexuals have the right to deny homosexuals their rights, just because heterosexuality happens to be more common?

Denying homosexuals the right to marry is the same as denying someone the right to marry because they, e.g., like to sleep naked, or do whatever else that maybe deviates from the norm but is harmful to _no one_.

Besides. Just because many societies today do not approve of homosexuality, does not mean it hasn’t been approved of in the past. This means those in favour of homosexual marriage don’t think they’re smarter than anyone else… Of course they don’t. This people in the civil rights movement fight for the rights of blacks just to prove they are smarter? Of course they didn’t.

Well, anyway. Just a couple of thoughts 🙂

On May 14, 2009 at 6:09 pm Bethany said:

Sorry it took me so long to get around to answering you. For your first question, about why I feel these relationships are different, see my most recent post. I honestly thought I had put that one up, but I forgot to get back to posting it. Hopefully that clears that part up for you.
A lot of the stats about gay couples can be found discussed more thoroughly on Troy’s blog, on my blogroll. His argument, and mine, is that statistically, a large number of gay couples do not stay together. Much more than heterosexual couples. They don’t practice monogamy, which most of us consider essential to a healthy marriage. More violence occurs between these couples. More STDs are promulgated by these couples. The lifestyle is, in general, unhealthy. I’m not saying there are no good gay couples out there, but the stats speak for themselves.
I believe that legalizing gay marriage DOES harm people. It harms children. I firmly believe that children are better off with a mother and a father, the way nature intended.
I assume, when you refer to people approving of homosexuality in the past, that you’re referring to ancient Greece and Rome. The problem with that is, most people misunderstand the way they practiced homosexuality. I know; I’m a Classics major and my focus was on ancient Greece. Upper class men did often practice homosexuality within certain of the Greek city-states, but never to the exclusion of sexual relationships with women. A man would marry whomever he was supposed to, and then would have relationships on the side, generally with adolescent boys. It was, in a sense, a mentoring sort of relationship, which would probably horrify most people today. Once the boy grew to a certain age, the relationship stopped. For two adult men to have a relationship would have been unacceptable to them.